News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing had a 2022-2023 budget of $672 million dollars. This does not include EMT and police services. It's just what they earmark for homelessness.
In 2022, there were 7,754 unhoused people in San Francisco.
That's roughly $86,000 per person they spend on getting them housing, and still failing at it. The average rent for an apartment in SF is $3500 a month, or $42,000 per year. They're spending twice as much as they would if they just got apartments for people.
Where is that money going, I wonder
Housing is just one aspect. Food, medicine,, paying for employees (social workers, security, medical staff) etc. But even if say 75% of that was for housing it's not easy to just say rent them apartments; first off not enough apartment buildings are willing to take them in. It's difficult to even find cheap motels that will work with cities to temporarily house the homeless even though it's guaranteed money. Cities are looking at building shelters but then it's NIMBY time. Without dedicated facilities with mental health, addiction, etc treatment which the US doesn't have homelessness will be a forever problem.
Two recommendations from me: Podcast limited series According to Need, which is about homelessness in the Bay Area. Book The End of Policing, has a great chapter on homelessness and costs (though I endorse the whole book).
BUT BUT BUT WE CAN'T JUST SOLVE PROBLEMS, WE VAVE TO MANAGE THEM.
7754 is the PIT count of people homeless at one given point in time. Many, many more cycle through homelessness in any year.
Most long-term homeless people can't just be given free apartments - they have serious, often untreatable problems that would make such a solution unsustainable.
A quick google shows that most homelessness advocacy groups can cite numerous studies that show housing-first solutions are not only more effective, but also cheaper.
Are these studies specifically of the long-term homeless population?
Maybe you should read them and report back
You brought them up but didn't provide a link.
Yeah because they're so easy to find it's literally the first five links on Google.
I didn't realize I was dealing with someone so content to be misinformed.
There’s no such thing as non-personalized google search anymore, you won’t necessarily see the same results as others
And here are some examples:
Look up the groups behind projects like these and you're sure to find documentation for their effectiveness. I'd much rather fund these than shelters where nobody feels safe.
Shut the fuck up, there are so many empty, insured buildings rotting away or even sitting in great condition but if we had to build new ones that CAN be done cheaply. No matter how bad they are, their problems would undoubtedly be VASTLY improved by the roof over their heads, and it could be sustained easily by the government taxing the rich even obscenely slightly. But no, instead we pass that burden onto the middle class so they get brainwashed into hating the poor too. Or stigmatizing, looking down on them, writing them all off as lesser beings who don't deserve a shred of hope. But realistically? Even if you have a million dollars today you could end up like them tomorrow. I remember somebody new starting at pizza hut who had just lost his house and was selling his Ferrari- it can happen to you. So many people are right around the corner from being homeless themselves and don't know it. Don't ever let anybody downplay that reality.
I have multiple layers of safety nets between me and long-term homelessness. These include my own personal resources, my family and friends, and access to government assistance. (My family has been on government assistance in the past; we struggled but we were housed and fed.) I can only see myself exhausting (or failing to utilize) all these safety nets if I develop severe addiction or mental illness, and in fact most long-term homeless people do have addictions or mental illnesses.
What do you think happens when someone with out-of-control addiction or mental illness is given a place to live? In the absence of strictly enforced rules (and such rules are one reason many long-term homeless people don't want to be in shelters) that place will soon be a wrecked crime scene. No matter how many empty buildings there are, almost no one would want that happening to a building he owns, or to a building near where he lives. This is why San Francisco (and many other cities) spend so much per homeless person without success - if simply giving them a place to live worked, cities would have more money and fewer homeless people.
Ok putting all this aside for a moment. If you just give someone a place to live you solve many immediate problems. The social worker knows where they are, the food stamps can be delivered right there, you get them out of the elements, any type of medication and you know where it is supposed to go, sanitation is also taken care of if nothing else they can shower.
So right it isn't an end all be all solution. You can easily have a whole bunch of underlying issues my point is you already got them housed you rid them of a whole mess of problems at once.
Just a fyi. I had a month from hell once and ended up homeless. It was amazing how fast I lost everything. Ended up living in my car until I could I could rebuild. The thing I wanted the most was a clean shower and a change of clothing.
You make it sound like homeless people or drug addicts are animals- learn some fucking empathy, please. Also none of this would be a issue if we had universal healthcare, too. They don't do either of these things or provide meaningful support to the lower class at all, really because then the police would be even more redundant and people would have additional opportunities to organize. It's that simple.
What a fucking lie. They still need housing regardless of their problems so you need to learn to accept them as they are and let them have a roof over their head. Give them a small house and isolate them from others that way if they're such a problem.
This comment is insane. You realize that a home / apartment needs to be maintained right? It's not a magical cave that functions on its own. There's plumbing, there's electrical, sewage, a person suffering from mental issues cannot be safely just put into a building and left to their own devices.
I'm all for helping the homeless but just saying give them a free apartment is bonkers and completely misses the point why a lot of people are homeless.
It's also why things will never change. You have the right who say fuck em, let them pull themselves up by the bootstraps and then you have lefties calling for free apartments.... Both solutions are insane and basically assure we'll never come to an agreement and people will continue to suffer.
Why is "give people houses" insane? Other countries have done it and virtually eradicated homelessness, Cities and organizations here in the US have tried it. In most cases, even the ones with "serious mental illnesses" are able to seek treatment and manage their illnesses FAR better when they have a stable platform to build upon - meaning a house and food, which eliminates the rather more pressing needs of "I need to figure out where to pitch a tent so the police don't drag me in" and "I need to eat some time this week or I'll starve to death" and allows you to start saying "I really want to talk to someone about this PTSD and the drug addiction I developed because of it" or "that social worker was right, I should see about getting on medication for my schizophrenia". Contrary to what people love to believe, most people with severe mental illnesses DO have touch with reality, and a lot of them simply don't have the framework necessary to start building a long-term care plan because their meds are expensive, or the meds they're on have terrible side effects, or they simply don't have health insurance to be diagnosed and treated properly in the first place.
I think (s)he meant it more like prison but more spacious
It would be insane to your classist bigoted NIMBY ass, but that's the reason why no one on the left listens to worthless Karens like you anymore.
Being a drug addict or severely mentally ill doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't have a house. Actually, the opposite: people like that need to just be given housing more than a normal person because they can't take care of themselves, and that means even if they destroy the house, they should have it.
Drug addicts and mentally ill people have rights.
They have rights, and there's nothing you can do to change that fact. Nothing.
And that means they have the right to housing just like the rest of us do.
You'll have to live among them whether you want to or not, and you best get over it.